Standing up for the cause of art
By Reeta Sharma

THIS week, internationally acknowledged dancers of our country unitedly expressed their distress at the ever- shrinking coverage of the arts in the media. Even the expression of protest was as elegant and visually attractive as are their majestic dance movements. They all wore black sarees as a mark of protest. Its another matter that black made them look all the more stunning. Besides the photos clicked and published in various newspapers had a dazzling effect. The agitators included the best of our dancers like Sonal Mansingh, Leela Samson, Uma Sharma, Swapan Sundari, Bharti Shivaji, Prerna Shrimali, Geeta Chandran, Madhvi Mudgal, Amita Ratnam etc.

The dancers pointed out that the media was paying less and less attention to the arts which has resulted in the dwindling coverage. Both the print and the electronic media were treating performing and other arts in the shabbiest possible manner, they said. For instance, classical dances are slotted at unearthly hours for telecast. The artiste, who was once central to the vitality of culture, is today relegated to the fringes.

They earnestly expressed the opinion that it was media’s responsibility to promote culture, arts and artists. To make art a people’s movement, media has to play an active role. However, in the absence of coverage on the part of the media, besides constructive patronage from other quarters, many arts of our country are dying. For instance, there is only one Kerala family left which makes masks for Kathakali performances. Scores of other artisans in this line have discontinued their association for lack of promotion and patronage.

I personally feel that the renowned dancers made a point but have yet to touch upon the vast enormity of the overall degenerating effects. There is no denying the fact that the media puts the arts at the bottom of its priority list. The decision-makers in each type of media are too pre-occupied with matters which wield power. For them, every other subject is more important than culture.

Today, either our arts are treated like a dessert after a heavy meal in print media, or weighed against revenue generation potential in the electronic media. Why Hindi films full of vulgarity, sex and violence are slotted for prime time? Why all sorts of junk-pop numbers are shown at prime time? All questions have answers in the so-called revenue generation strategies of various channels.

Today, a sponsorer would laugh at a director who wishes to present traditional pure arts like Indian classical singing, dancing, or various types of folk forms. Can you imagine somebody displaying paintings on television from all corners of India? Our viewers would simply switch off the channel. But you can’t blame them. The electronic media has made them addicts of superfast action, ruthless violence, and heavy duty editing. They have fed them such trash that viewers have lost the appetite for anything classical in nature. Superficiality and frivolity are at play because they generate revenue. Has our electronic media ever tried to pause and think about its role and its far-reaching consequences?

As for the role of the print media, the end result is the same --- ever shrinking space for coverage of the arts. It is not a matter of space only. The print media has not taken it as its responsibility to search and cultivate critics who would themselves have some foundation in the arts. Leaving aside a few, almost every publication has dealt with the coverage of culture and arts as something not very important. So in our Chandigarh, a cub-reporter is sent to cover Kishori Amonkar’s recital, Amjad Ali Khan’s sarod-vadan, Abida Parvin’s Sufiana kalaam, Aparna Kaur’s painting exhibition, Sonal Mansingh’s Bharatnatyam, Uma Sharma’s Kathak, Hari Prasad Chaurasia’s bansuri-vadan or a play produced by either professionals or amateurs. It’s not only humiliating but also extremely offensive that people having no background or claim to arts should cover these events. But do the performers have any choice but to remain superficially sweet to such cub-reporters?

And what would an inexperienced reporter, without any knowledge of a particular art, write about? Surely, either excessive appreciation and frivolous comments or criticism born out of either ignorance or cynicism. Can we blame the reporter? Well, only partially. The real blame lies with the authorities who assign them such coverage. A cub-reporter can hardly refuse an assignment.

I remember once Sitara Devi performed in the city and left the audience spell-bound with her majestic movements. A reporter called her movements "sensuous." Sitara was outraged. She stormed into the office of the publication to express her indignation.

Similarly, years back Kavita and Vinod Nagpal had staged Bakri at Tagore Theatre in Chandigarh. Next morning, they were very amused to read the reviews published in the local Press. They lacked depth and the reporters clearly had no clue to the symbolism weaved into the play.

Then our city was lucky to have a very creative and imaginative director in Kumar Verma. He was a gold medalist from the National School of Drama and had joined the Department of Indian Theatre at the Panjab University as a lecturer in the late seventies. Besides his class-room productions, he staged many plays outside the department, including Udhavast Dharamshala, House of Bernarda Elba, Baki Ittihas, Death Watch, etc. But unfortunately every time the reviews were not only inadequate but also extremely depressing and annoying. Since he was a sensitive director, it used to upset him to think that people unconnected to theatre would sit on judgement on his productions.

Amateur theatre, folk forms, painting, sketching, handicrafts and artisans are the worst hit by the lack of appropriate attention by the media. In fact, both the electronic and the print media display a certain kind of contempt for amateurs. They are weighed against professionals and hence do not get the space that they deserve.

That art and culture are our heritage that ought to be passed on to the next generation is forgotten not only by the media but by the authorities as well. Artist(e)s cannot survive on their own because we have vitiated the performing world with crass commercialism. Hence only the highly professional and the established survive. It’s amazing that for one performance lakhs are paid but for promoting promising amateurs spending even a few thousands is projected as an act of favour. This vast difference is reflected in the coverage by the media as well.

Departments in the governments who have the funds at their command to promote culture and art have by and large become dens of exploitation. This is because they are mostly headed by people who are not sensitive to the world of culture and art.

To conclude, it’s not only the media but various other agencies also who ought to realise the impact of our arts on our future generations. Hence, it is their moral duty to give this world of art its long-denied due.

This feature was published on September 4, 1999